Re: BUG #5269: postgres backend terminates with SIGSEGV

On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Justin Pitts <jpitts(at)bplglobal(dot)net> writes:
>> My guess is that I am not provoking a 'SI queue overrun'
>
> The 100 temp table creations probably will do that just fine.
>

Is there a way to verify this?

>> Am I completely off base about how this should be reproducing?
>
> Two points: the session you hope to have crash *must* be in serializable
> mode,

The 2 competing sessions doing the read/modify sequence on foo are set to SERIALIZABLE.

> and the crash would actually happen in the transaction after the
> one that's rolled back.
>

I don't follow. Are you suggesting I begin another transaction on connection 1 with a read, and that
would provoke the crash?

> The error doesn't have to be a serialization error, so in principle
> you should be able to make it fail with something as simple as
>
> begin;
> select 1/0;
> rollback;
> select * from foo;
>
> as long as the ROLLBACK is done with a prepared statement and you've
> forced a SI overrun since the ROLLBACK was prepared.
>
> regards, tom lane